IPCC Process
Introduction
Although the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) contains the word 'independent' in its title, this is a misnomer. Most cases are examined by the police forces involved, with the IPCC acting a some sort of arbiter - but as in most (if not all) cases where organizations regulate themselves, the outcomes are fairly predicatable beforehand.
My case was to be examined by Inspector Eddie Charlton, who works at the very same office as PC Wakefield, the officer who gave me a caution originally
Inspector Charlton did not give me any confidence that he understood the basis of my complaint, and things were not carried out with any pretense of impartiality.
Meeting
My meeting with Inspector Charlton did not go well initially because he was not aware of the basis of my complaint
As soon as he realized what I was saying (i.e. that I was claiming a recorded delivey letter had been stolen) he almost immediately (I remember it as being within 30 seconds) came to the conclusion that the letter had not been stolen and that my fellow resident had just handed it over to my harasser. Why that was so obvious given that the letter was a request to forward my mail and the scenario whereby this letter should then be handed over to a third-party, complete with the envelope is not a very probable scenario to me. I suspect that the problem was caused by Inspector Charlton not listening to me and not taking onboard what the enclosed letter was actually about.
(To be more precise, the events described in the paragraph above were preceeded by Inspector Charlton looking at me and asking: "How can mail be stolen?". The usual reaction to questions like that would be to wonder where the questioner was really cut out for investigative work.)
He would not tell me the number of the recorded delivery letter (so I could check the signature myself). I had thrown the receipt away when M. responded to the letter that was originally contained within the recorded delivery envelope.
He was also of the opinion that my caution will not affect my employment prospects - he would 'bet his life on it'. For my part, I find it hard to credit that anyone could believe that. Harassment is essentially a sacking offence, not something to be overlooked by a recruitment officer when taking on new staff
The Resulting Report
Below is a copy of Inspector Charlton's report
Although very highly suggestive, it is very low on detail - and does not address the specific issue of the recorded delivery letter which was the sole point of my complaint.
I enquired about these aspects and eventually received this email (clicking on this link displays the email in a separate window)
This email radically alters the original report and I appealed to the IPCC stating this feature.
Unfortunately I was unable to complain about this email because the time-limit for complaining about it had expired before I received it (you have read this correctly)
After much effort I did receive the following response from the Hampshire Police concerning Sections 1 and 2 of the above IPCC report.
In the next section, I give some relevant comments on the three documents downloadable in this section. In the section after that, I state what would have been an acceptable response for the police to have given me.
Comments On The 3 Documents From The Last Section
Complaints 1 and 2
The statements here have been negated by a communication from the police of June 2012.
The statement in the report states that in response to my belief that the relevant documents presented at the time of my arrest had in fact been stolen (mostly importantly, a recorded delivery letter), PC Wakefield carried out an investigation which showed that my beliefs were incorrect. I had nevertheless continued my complaints despite being informed of this clear fact
The above-mentioned communication of June 2012 makes it clear that all I received from Wakefield was an evidence-free statement that ‘I suggest that the letters might have been confused”
This statement (of 3rd December 2009) was just a knee-jerk reaction to my initial complaint the day beforehand, just an attempt to come up with any scenario to ‘justify’ the police’s actions.
After Wakefield’s response, I asked Matthew (Winder) whether he had received this recorded delivery letter. He replied he hadn’t, so I informed Wakefield and awaited the outcome.
When after a few months, nothing had happened, I complained to the IPCC.
Other sections / complaints
The other sections have essentially been superseded and nullified by an email soon after from Charlton. In the original report, Charlton talks about “all” the letters, whereas in the email he says he was talking only about one letter (without telling us which letter he means)
So I am back at square one again. I complained to the IPCC specifically about the recorded delivery letter and I still have no response to that specific complaint.
Important point
This leads on to a seemingly small but actually highly important point. Insofar as Charlton has mentioned the recorded delivery letter he talks about it being handed over because ‘they all knew that I was waging a vendetta”.
As I state fully later, this is idea of a ‘vendetta’ ridiculous but nevertheless the letters were quite specifically directed against the actions of a fellow tenant. But not the recorded delivery letter – that was just a request to Matthew to forward my mail, and nothing else. The reason stated by Charlton that letters were handed over because of a ‘vendetta’ have no relevance here – that is quite simply no reason why Matthew would hand over the recorded delivery letter, complete with its envelope.
Charlton does not realize the nature of the recorded delivery letter. I did tell him this information quite specifically during our talk at Fratton Police Station but it was fairly obvious to me at the time that he was taking little notice of what I was saying.
This ‘investigation’ has been very sloppy.
General remarks about these latter complaints
Although, as I say, these latter complaints/sections have been superseded by Charlton’s later email, there are additional point(s) to make.
- For example, he states that a caution was the right penalty for Vincett’s third attack on me. I find this highly offensive for a couple of reasons, not just for the fact that he has damaged my eyesight in that quite often I have difficulty focussing. Directly after this third assault, the level of harassment I was receiving from Vincett was noticeably enhanced in comparison with beforehand – and this must be due to the leniency of the action taken by the police.
Essentially my life ceased to my own, it was controlled by Vincett. I had to endure permanent, regular door-slamming; he would follow me into the kitchen every time I went in there (and I do effectively mean ‘every time’ because he never went out – the only respite I had was on Sunday and on my days off when he was out for about an hour doing his paper round). I had regular abuse thrown in my direction etc. etc. etc. In short, he was continually gearing up to hit me for a fourth time – harassment with threats of violence. A total affront to my dignity
- Charlton talks about ‘all the letters’. Yet not all letters were presented at my interview. The first letter presented was simply a request to bear witness to the continuous door-slamming (which the police later told me was not against the law, as such : something that appeared to have escaped my lawyer). The second letter I sent was a request to bear witness to the way I was being constantly followed around – this was not presented at my interview. Neither was a letter mailed after my move – this was as a result of the mudguard falling off my bike because someone had removed three of the four connecting rods.
- Charlton talks about me not having any real proof. He talks as though I just came in of the streets with a vague assumption about theft. The reason why I claimed theft was because Matthew, the intended recipient of the recorded deliver letter, told me he had not received it. What else in the way of proof can someone like myself provide?
- Charlton alleges I was told earlier to ‘keep away from him’, which is not true. I know to keep away from a creepy thug all by myself, without anyone telling me. Charlton says this was mentioned and agreed by me during our talk at Fratton police station. He is just making this up.
- (Additionally he thinks a caution for harassment is no bar whatsoever to gaining employment – he would ‘bet his life on it’. What you make of this statement really does depend on how much you are in touch with reality)
Comments on Wakefield
The letters involved were for the most part requests for witnesses with a view to taking legal action, and I genuinely think Wakefield totally missed this point completely.
I should think that many people have met this state of affairs at least once in their life (and I have experienced it several times) – something is written in crystal clear English but individual(s) quite simply cannot understand what it says (in the same way, there will be people who will read this, but will be quite unable to understand what it says).
I know afterwards Wakefield did actually ask me :”How much longer is this going to go on”? I was trying to take legal action and Wakefield thinks that this recourse to legal action would prolong the dispute whereas I was working under the assumption it would shorten it (that’s the literal interpretation of course – as I say, in reality, I don’t think Wakefield was aware that I trying to take legal action).
And anyway if a recourse to legal action was illegal, lawyers would be up in arms at all the business they would be losing.
An Acceptable response
I would prefer the police to address my suspicions in a more direct way by specifically mentioning the recorded delivery letter. An appropriate response would have included the following information
- Response to checking the signature (can you believe that the police have investigated a complaint about theft of a recorded delivery letter without actually checking the signature?)
- Specific statement of what my colleague said when asked by the police whether he had received my recorded delivery letter, and whether he had handed it over to my harasser
- If the answer to both questions above were to be 'yes' then the next question from the police would be to ask why he had told me the exact opposite (if he had not told me the exact opposite, then I would not have gone to the police and the said police officer would not be there at the said time asking these questions . That information would then need to be transmitted on to me to inform me why the police version of events has precedence over 'my' version, the latter version being the one where my colleague told me he had not received my letter
- The police would then need to ask why he handed the letter over. The letter was simply a request to forward mail, and there is no obvious reason why he should hand it over to a third party, complete with the envelope
- Finally, the police would need to tell me whether they had offered my colleague any 'protection' - my harasser had hit me three times and obviously not been thrown out so if he was found to have stolen mail he would also be unlikely to get thrown out, given that stealing mail is less serious then assaulting someone with extreme violence. By giving the 'wrong' answers (or maybe that should be the right answers), my colleague would be likely to be causing himself some great aggravation. The police would need to tell me how this factor was handled - without consideration of this factor they would hardly have any right to describe their statements as 'irrefutable' (a word which they have actually used)
There is more than a whiff of : 'Inspector Charlton decided the outcome and then went out to prove it' - a methodology the exact opposite of the scientific method. In so doing he closed ranks with his fellow officer, PC Wakefield, at Fratton Police Station and with the Police Inspector who is the father of my harasser.
There is no indication that a correct method has been followed - I would want to know if any steps were taken to negate the possible reluctance of M. to bear witness. These were unsolicited letters concerning an anti-social tenant under the same roof as M.. Given
- that M. possibly knew by then that he had hit me three times without being thrown out of the property
- that M. had witnessed his harassment of myself
then M. might indeed be reluctant to stick his neck out.
In fact, the nore correct I am with my allegations of harassment and stalking and thuggery, the more reluctant M. will become.